The Belgian church takeover story

"What I don't know is why it is making the rounds now, when it is over a year old."

Sometimes we forget that a crucial part of the news is reporters -- you need actual live human beings to go get the stories; and most of our reporters are still PC dhimmis, unfortunately, who ignore stories like this -- or, if they notice them, skew the interpretation and leave out the Islamic factor.

For every one of these stories about creeping Islamification around the world, there are probably a dozen that simply don't get noticed by reporters -- and hence, never get into the news pool; and consequently, never (or only a year or more later) become part of our information Reality.

Yes, but these are all new pictures. It's news in the sense that a entire year later, the practice of Muslims using churches as shelters is still going on. Also, I read that while some priests objected to the practice before, they are silenced because the bishop is for Muslims tenting in the churches. Moreover, I read that a legislator objected to the practice on the grounds of hygiene--the churches have few toilets and no showers.

Yes, but these are all new pictures. It's news in the sense that a entire year later, the practice of Muslims using churches as shelters is still going on. Also, I read that while some priests objected to the practice before, they are silenced because the bishop is for Muslims tenting in the churches. Moreover, I read that a legislator objected to the practice on the grounds of hygiene--the churches have few toilets and no showers.

Allah Takes Over Church

Belgian Church Organizes Illegal Immigrants

Ah, the fruits of Vatican II. Apparently the "new springtime" means not just a new liturgy and catechism but capitulation to the Mohammedan hordes as well. Are there no Catholics left in Belgium episcopate? Never mind, I know the answer. Lefebvre was right - Europe beware the Mohammedans in your midst.

It is not unrealistic speculation to envision the day when Vatican City, maybe in oh 2050 or so, renamed to be the Global Caliphate, its bishops replaced with muftis reading, line-by-line, from the Koran and Hadiths, awful things both.

Two quick observations on our current state, hopefully disassociated buy not disassociative thoughts:

1) Reading from Bostrom's book, it strikes me that the timing of the onset of Islam in Europe is more or less coincident with the Middle Ages.

2) The legalisms of international relations need to include a new principle: If a nation can't control its own, then it all the country's people are fully responsible for the deeds of their trouble makers.

Thinking on the second point, many prospects come to mind: Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Maghribia, Syria, Pakistan, the list is substantial.

Turncoat Christian countries like Russia, France, and Germany would be on the Troublemakers List, too.

I cant help wonder wot the reaction would be if christians took over a mosque.

Is it time to fire up the christians?

There are churchmen, and laymen who claim to be Christians, who are Defenders of the Faith -- the Faith being Islam. Soppy-sentimental some of them, others sinister (giving off telltale signs, unsurprisingly, of antisemitism in its "acceptable" version -- viciousness about Israel, and incessant misstatements about the war being made on it by Muslim Arabs, sometimes abetted by Arab islamochristians of the Hanan-Ashrawi or Naim-Ateek school). It is a little like that phrase "Christian activist" -- we know that when someone describes himself thus, or is so described, he is likely to be not admirable, not Christian, but a menace to the West, and the least of that "Christian activist's" interests will be to protect Christians within Dar al-Islam.

Oriana Fallaci has written about the Italian version of these churchmen, especially in Florence, where some of those given sanctuary proceeded to urinate and defecate just outside, and even within, these churches. They even urinated, I recall, on the "Doors of Paradise" --Ghiberti's doors at the Baptistery. So much for those churchmen. Kick them out of the Church, end their sinecures. They have not been exhibitng Christian charity as they like to pretend. They have been promoting the bearers of a totalitarian ideology that does not mean Christians, Christianity, or for that matter the Western civilization that comes out of Christianity (and the Hebrew and Hellenic sources that sometimes run parallel, and sometimes intersect).

Christian clergy members should cease to exhibit this holier-than-thou self-regarding sympathy for the enemy of thought, art, science. The Total Regulation of Life, the Complete Explanation of the Universe, the Group over the Individual, always the Group -- these are not things to be promoted in the West, but actively kept out, mocked, stymied, defeated at every step. That sentimental nonsense about "the three abrahamic faiths" conceals a 1350-year history not of pluralism -- the very idea is absurd to a Believer -- but of subjugation of Christians and Jews (and Zoroastrians, who early on acquired honorary status as ahl al-kitab). And for the Hindus (who later were given such status, in the sense that they could pay the Jizyah and endure other indignities and yet survive) and the Buddhists and the Sikhs and other non-"People of the Book" -- it was even worse.

Gottfried Daneels is a witless idiot.

Speaking of which, there is a great passage in "The Idiot" (dostoevski) in which one character explains to another how the russian radicals of the time claim to want to do this and that for their motherland--to fix her faults and problems--but in point of fact they do not love, but rather hate, in the most bilious and profound way, Russia herself.

The passage is brilliant because it is one of those which can be read in many times and circumstances, substituting other entities for "Russia," and suddenly one sees clearly this hatred--this psychological disorder that transcends time just as greed and cowardice transcend time. The hatred of mother.

In this case, it is hatred of the church, which Daneels pretends, rather badly, to serve.

The joys of the internet: here it is . . .

"In the first place, what is liberalism, speaking generally, but an attack (whether mistaken or reasonable, is quite another question) upon the existing order of things? Is this so? Yes. Very well. Then my 'fact' consists in this, that Russian liberalism is not an attack upon the existing order of things, but an attack upon the very essence of things themselves--indeed, on the things themselves; not an attack on the Russian order of things, but on Russia itself. My Russian liberal goes so far as to reject Russia; that is, he hates and strikes his own mother. Every misfortune and mishap of the mother-country fills him with mirth, and even with ecstasy. He hates the national customs, Russian history, and everything. If he has a justification, it is that he does not know what he is doing, and believes that his hatred of Russia is the grandest and most profitable kind of liberalism. (You will often find a liberal who is applauded and esteemed by his fellows, but who is in reality the dreariest, blindest, dullest of conservatives, and is not aware of the fact.) This hatred for Russia has been mistaken by some of our 'Russian liberals' for sincere love of their country, and they boast that they see better than their neighbours what real love of one's country should consist in. But of late they have grown, more candid and are ashamed of the expression 'love of country,' and have annihilated the very spirit of the words as something injurious and petty and undignified. This is the truth, and I hold by it; but at the same time it is a phenomenon which has not been repeated at any other time or place; and therefore, though I hold to it as a fact, yet I recognize that it is an accidental phenomenon, and may likely enough pass away. There can be no such thing anywhere else as a liberal who really hates his country; and how is this fact to be explained among us? By my original statement that a Russian liberal is not a Russian liberal--that's the only explanation that I can see."

Note that this last part seems no longer to be true: hatred of one's own culture has metastasized throughout Europe.

How bizarre!

This is a classic case of irresponsible and misguided spiritual leadership.

Belgian Catholic leaders are making Belgium a doormat for Muslims.

Spineless Belgiam Catholic bishops!

The Catholic Church in Belgium is in a period of steep decline.

Sadly, Belgian bishops have betrayed the teachings of the Catholic church for secular principles (E.G. homosexual marriages, open immigration, etc).

And they don't seem very concerned about keeping Catholic Churches in the hands of Catholics.

Somehow pastoral outreach to Catholics in Belgium has taken a backseat to the supreme virtue of "welcoming" Muslim immigrants.

Would the same response be given to native born homeless Catholics in Belgium?

Jesus taught about feeding the poor and sick in the world but he never advocated for giving up a sacred religious sanctuary and turning it into a makeshift camp and MOSQUE.

I have a story to share. I was once in the seminary studying to become a Roman Catholic priest.

While in the (minor)seminary in the U.S, I accepted an invitation to spend one week in Belgium visiting a (major) seminary for my next progression of studies.

I thought that I wanted to study in a seminary located in this once devout Catholic country because it had a rich intellectual tradition.

While walking around the city of Brussels with a monsignor (priest) from my diocese, I walked by a beautiful old Catholic church that was quite typical of most Catholic churches in Belgium.

Although it was in need of some major renovation, the church contained a beautiful and impressive foundation. The church was also located in an area of Brussels that was poor, crime ridden, and filled with Muslim Arabs.

While walking down the street next to this old church, an Arab immigrant pulled up in his old Mercedes car and walked up to the church and pulled down his pants.

Then he urinated on the church building.

Asa Roman Catholic, I was quite offended and wanted to confront this Arab man and let him know that his actions were very inappropriate and offensive.

But my monsignor tour guide talked me out of it. He determined that it would not be safe for us since the Arab man may have been intoxicated.

I thought that the monsignor was being a little timid in his response. But I went along with his advice.

This was a turning point in a series of events that made me realize that I was not called to become a Roman Catholic priest. I left the seminary a few months later. There are many other important reasons I left the seminary- such as my desire to have a wife and family. But this encounter helped me realize that I don't want to associate with the Catholic priestly way of handling touchy issues, such as Muslim immigration and other social issues.

I wanted to yell at the disrespectful Arab man. I hoped to challenge this disrespectful Arab Muslim man and give him a piece of my mind.

I did not want to turn my cheek and watch him urinate on a Catholic church.

What is equally amazing is the fact that no other Belgian person in the neighborhood seemed to care that the Arab urinated on the Catholic church.

This encounter gave me a real glimpse into Belgian society. It is trobling that Belgian society today shows little concern about preserving it Catholic heritage. Belgian society seems more concerned about maintaining a materialistic and secular ethos.

It is clear to me that Belgian people are timid and weak in confronting their own social problems because they are afraid to challenge Arab Muslim immigrants and their crime infested neighborhoods.

I wish this was a joke...

http://forum.newspaperindex.com/viewtopic.php?t=658

Johnathan: To Jesus himself, "sacred spaces" weren't really that important. He said that foxes have holes, the birds of the air have their nests, but the Son of Man (see Daniel 7) has no place to lay his head. To the woman of Samaria (John 4), he said that the day was coming when the true worshippers would worship not in Jerusalem nor Gerizim (the Samaritans' holy place), but in Spirit and Truth.

My own take on the Muslim takeover of the Belgian church is that it is simple squatting and theft born from taking advantage of people who intended to be charitable, and should be dealt with in the appropriate manner under Belgian law.

Also, Spain is full of churches that were once mosques. Many Indonesian Christians descend from Muslims, as do the Kryashen ("Baptised") Tatars of Russia. May the trend spread everywhere from Mauretania to Mindanao.

Kepha wrote:

Johnathan: To Jesus himself, "sacred spaces" weren't really that important. He said that foxes have holes, the birds of the air have their nests, but the Son of Man (see Daniel 7) has no place to lay his head.

I beg to differ. How do you know that places weren't sacred to Jesus?

I read Daniel 7 and did not find the quote you mentioned. Actually, Daniel chapter 7 deals with visions of the four beasts. This chapter is from the old testament. You misquoted here. It has nothing to do with Jesus' sayings about having no where to lay his head as is written in the new testament.

What Jesus said in the new testament by saying he has no where to lay his head is that that he had no real place to call home. His work was to do the will of God, which took him on the road to interact with many different people.

This passage should not be used to build your weak case that Jesus somehow believed that religious places were not sacred.

Jesus never advocated for religious buildings to be converted into hospitals and homes for the homeless.

Of course, a church should be used for the purpose it was created, namely, to worship God.

To turn a Catholic Church, which is sacred place to Catholics, and then and turn it into a makeshift refugee camp for Muslim immigrants is absolutely irresponsible and foolish.

I don't care what the hell Belgian Catholic believe about being neighborly to Muslim immigrants. They have misused their spiritual authority as bishops and have utterly failed in their responsibility to use a church building for sacred worship.

Also, let's not forget that the mosques(Cordoba) that were built in Spain were built by invading Muslim Moors who dominated areas of Spain and controlled Christians and Jews.

The reason why this story is cropping up now is because of the present wave of church occupations in Belgium. More than twentyfive buildings, mainly churches are being camped in at the moment. This is a conserted effort to force the authorities to give tens of thousands of people staying illegaly in the country "papers", this is the right to live and work here and of course to make use of the benefits of social security. Several bishops have applauded these occupations. People who do not agree are branded as heartless, racist or "far right".
We have local elections coming up in october in these elections foreign nationals (mainly muslims) are allowed to vote for the first time. The mainstream parties are falling over each other to get these foreign votes (a sizeable and growing percentage of the population). The people that are now camping in our churches and demanding "papers" are the voters of the near future!

The right to vote for foreign nationals did not have the support of the majority of the population, yet it was pushed through parliament. Many, many ordinary people here are disgusted and shocked (and very very cynical, so there is still some hope that the tide can change but time is running out fast.

iloveFlanders.

You posted:

"We have local elections coming up in october in these elections foreign nationals (mainly muslims) are allowed to vote for the first time."

What the hey? Can you run that by me again?

How on Earth does that work? Taken at face value, that is an incredible notion.

Anthony:

In response to your question about iloveFlanders' posting, I will focus on trying to clarify alien votings rights in Belgium instead of adding my personal (sceptical) appreciation thereof, which has already been explicated by earlier posts.

Foreign nationals can indeed vote in certain types of elections, such as voting for the municipal government, on the condition of their having legally resided in Belgium for a period of at least 5 years. This recently introduced legal measure is not a European unicum, however, since voting rights for aliens in one form or another exist in several other nations, including the Scandinavian countries, Ireland, Chech Republic, Spain, England, the Netherlands, et cetera.

In fact, permanent residents in the US can also partake in local and state elections that do not require US citizenship. What I find incredible, though, is that the US penal code has listed the act of voting in elections for US citizens only as a criminal offense which can be punishable by deportation.

Belgian Church occupations up-to-date photos and comments. See my comments on the nature of the occupations, although I will be checking this out by revisiting the Churches and making some new visits. Our Lady of the Sacred Heart seems to be an exclusively Iranian occupation.